"Just" Cardio
Replies
-
OK, so, I don't want to get in the middle of a heated argument here, but I do have a question. At the moment, I use my exercise bike, and I walk. I'm big, and I'm only really interested in burning calories. However, as I get closer to my goal, I'm going to want to tone up as well. My legs will probably not be too bad, but my body and arms aren't getting a workout at all at the moment. I can't really see myself in the gym, I would rather swim, when I know that people won't take one look at me in a swim suit & call greenpeace. So, can I achieve a lean, toned (but not particularly muscular) body, by swimming alone?
Yes. Just lower your BF% through a good diet and you will become "toned", so to speak,. The problem can be that people sometimes don't have a lot of muscle to begin with and vastly over estimate how much they have. A lot of bigger people start off thinking they have a lot muscle under all of the fat but most of them find out it's not as much as they thought. So, most people will also need to add muscle to look fit. It depends on what you goals are. If you simply want to look smaller, swimming should be fine. If you want to look smaller but look somewhat athletic, you'll probably want to do some resistance training.
Body weight exercises and intense Yoga can also be good options if weights are not your thing.0 -
Why do people in this thread think that tennis players, MMA fighters, soccer players, swimmers, football players, and even cyclists and sprinters don't spend hours in the weight room as part of their training regimen? Because they all do.0
-
Why do people in this thread think that tennis players, MMA fighters, soccer players, swimmers, football players, and even cyclists and sprinters don't spend hours in the weight room as part of their training regimen? Because they all do.
That's the point. Most of these athletes do weight training. Although, most cyclists I know don't.
People post a picture of a swimmer and say "look at that swimmers body" but chances are that person spends time in the weight room.
Athletes for the most part are trained in total fitness. They may not spend as much time in the weight room as say a football player or wrestler but they do lift weights which will contribute to the muscle you see.0 -
Why do people in this thread think that tennis players, MMA fighters, soccer players, swimmers, football players, and even cyclists and sprinters don't spend hours in the weight room as part of their training regimen? Because they all do.
Uh, no one is suggesting that they don't weight train. The photos I used were to illustrate that world-class athletes in certain sports/cardio activities that require bursts of explosiveness (use of fast twitch muscles) tend to have/retain more muscle mass than those world-class athletes in endurance disciplines (marathon, tri-athlete, road cycling). That's pretty obvious, right? Irregardless of weightlifting.
Goes back to the OP's original premise that "cardio" activities like running and cycling can build muscles. That depends. Sure, if they're done in explosive but short bursts, max effort, high-intensity levels. But not likely if those same activities are done at long duration, lower-intensity levels.
Some people are not that into weight training. I can preach all the benefits but they still wouldn't care to do it. And I'm OK with that. Though not nearly as effective or expedient as weight training, those individuals can get similar, desirable body recomposition (increase in lean muscle mass) from other activities like plyometrics, HIIT, etc. that require fast, powerful movements.0 -
Notice I said HI SPEED. If latic acid build up happens, the muscles don't contract and you HAVE TO STOP. Running a mile at a steady pace doesn't cause this build up. The recruitment of muscles is different.That's daft. All runners hit hills at some time. It's part of running. Or like sprinting does that not count under your definition of "running"?
Please before you go on, learn the difference between what fast twitch and slow twitch fibers are and how they are built. It will make more sense if you understand their make ups.0 -
Notice I said HI SPEED. If latic acid build up happens, the muscles don't contract and you HAVE TO STOP. Running a mile at a steady pace doesn't cause this build up. The recruitment of muscles is different.That's daft. All runners hit hills at some time. It's part of running. Or like sprinting does that not count under your definition of "running"?
Please before you go on, learn the difference between what fast twitch and slow twitch fibers are and how they are built. It will make more sense if you understand their make ups.
Be careful, you're not allowed to tell people they don't know what they're talking about around here, apparently.0 -
All I asked in my original post was to point out ONE sport that was purely cardio. By that I mean, a sport that purely raises your heart rate, because none do. Most people on here misunderstand the meaning of the term cardio, and assume it means anything that isn't lifting weights. It isn't. It is anything that raises your heart rate, and all exercise raises your heart rate.
So you basically asked a ____ question that you already knew the answer to. So what's your point?I haven't said "Cardio builds muscles" of course it doesn't. I have said what sport IS purely cardio? Such a thing doesn't exist. I am not talking about continuing to build muscle indefinitely weight-lifter style. I am talking about almost every activity we do having a positive effect on our muscles.
The last statement is contentious. As pointed out earlier, depending on the intensity and duration, every activity can have a positive effect on muscles (if fast, powerful) and/or negative effect on muscles (if longer, less intense).
Doesn't mean you should avoid endurance activities, which are absolutely wonderful for increasing fitness levels and burning fat. Just depends on what you're after.0 -
Goes back to the OP's original premise that "cardio" activities like running and cycling can build muscles. That depends. Sure, if they're done in explosive but short bursts, max effort, high-intensity levels. But not likely if those same activities are done at long duration, lower-intensity levels.
Some people are not that into weight training. I can preach all the benefits but they still wouldn't care to do it. And I'm OK with that. Though not nearly as effective or expedient as weight training, those individuals can get similar, desirable body recomposition (increase in lean muscle mass) from other activities like plyometrics, HIIT, etc. that require fast, powerful movements.
You're talking about 2 different things. Look, cardio is an aerobic workout, you aren't building muscle doing it. Max burst, high-intensity activities like HIIT, plyometrics, sprinting, etc. aren't cardio exercises, as they are anaerobic in nature. So no, cardio (aerobic) exercise does not build muscle, you need to mix in anaerobic activities as well. Running a mile and doing several sprints with recovery in between are not the same activity at all.0 -
You're talking about 2 different things. Look, cardio is an aerobic workout, you aren't building muscle doing it. Max burst, high-intensity activities like HIIT, plyometrics, sprinting, etc. aren't cardio exercises, as they are anaerobic in nature. So no, cardio (aerobic) exercise does not build muscle, you need to mix in anaerobic activities as well. Running a mile and doing several sprints with recovery in between are not the same activity at all.
Dude,
I'm not on this silly thread to argue over semantics with you. This isn't directly about aerobic (with oxygen) vs. anaerobic (w/o oxygen) workouts. Please start back on this thread from OP's initial statements before taking it off-tangent:
OP: "Running and cycling build leg muscles, rowing builds them all over, as does swimming, I can't think of any sport where the cardio aspect is balanced with some strengthening effect."
Next poster: "Cardio WILL build muscle!"
OP: "What I am saying is how can there be such a things as pure "cardio"? I can't think of any exercise that raises your heart rate with no muscular force. And muscular force WILL build muscle."
OP: "I am not disagreeing that running builds muscle. Absolutely it does."
OP: "RUNNING can help you build and maintain muscle. CARDIO is purely about heart rate."
Then OP says "Cardiovascular activity doesn't build muscle. I have not at any point said it does, but name a cardiovascular activity that doesn't involve *some* level of resistance."
OP: "Most people on here misunderstand the meaning of the term cardio, and assume it means anything that isn't lifting weights. It isn't. It is anything that raises your heart rate, and all exercise raises your heart rate."
I believe this is the logic OP is trying to lay out there based on her posts; please correct me if I'm wrong OP:
All exercises raise your heart rate. Cardio is "purely about heart rate." So every activity has a cardio element. But there is no purely cardio exercise. All exercises utilize muscular force and some level of resistance. "Muscular force will build muscle." Implying all exercises can build muscles.
I as well as others (I believe) are merely trying to explain to OP that all exercises may NOT build muscles. Depends on whether or not the same activity tends to be more anaerobic vs. aerobic as you well point out. By her most recent posts, I don't think she disagrees with that.
Gawd, I think I spent way too much time on this topic.0 -
OK, thank you to the people who answered my swimming questions. I didnt really read the rest ;o)0
-
In the first 20 minutes of exercise, your body uses ATP as it's first energy source. ATP only lasts about 20 minutes of use before the source is depleted. Afterwards, the body uses the fats and carbohydrates that were stored in the body from previous meals. The thing is, after your fat and carb sources are depleted, your body begins to burn fat (stored in the body -- the fat that makes us look -- well, fat), but for runners, they usually don't have this stored fat, so they have to use muscle stored in the body, which is why THIS kind of intense cardio burns muscle.
If you're a new runner (I'm currently 138lbs and been running since May this year) how would this logic apply to me? As in, I can definitely feel a layer of fat still on my legs, arms, back and stomach. Running seems to be slowly reducing this but it's still there. Am I right in assuming that at the stage of running and body composition I'm at currently, that I will continue to burn the fat off rather than muscle when doing runs of 20 minutes and over?
There was also a comment (page 3 or somewhere!) about the lactic acid build up in the muscles which means the muscle is overloaded and that the "burn" will make you stop lifting, and how you don't get this running. I get this when I run and when I cycle (been cycling for over 2 years and I still get it going up hills!!!) so does this mean that my muscles are being overloaded and if so what does this mean in terms of what my muscles are doing?
Very interesting thread BTW I've enjoyed reading it!0 -
Running doesn't burn muscle. Over training burns muscle.
http://www.medicexchange.com/news/2010/11/mobile-mri-proved-well-tracking-down-body-responses-of-endurance-runners/
22 runners MRI'd every few days - 4500 Kilometers - 45 days - 50% body fat loss - 7% leg muscle loss - NO upper body muscle loss
Running in the beginning can build muscle. Once you build it a bit though you stop building it because you're not increasing the weight and stressing the muscles in the right way. It's like going to the gym for 5 years and using the same weight with the same reps all 5 years and saying "hmmm why aren't I building muscle"
There is no "pure" cardio. If you're moving your body you're building muscle to a certain point. After you hit that point it may not be "pure" cardio, but because the load is too light it's really close.
Just my $.020 -
You didn't build them is the point..................they were already there. You have back muscles. You have shoulder muscles. You have butt muscles. Reducing fat exposes them, and the misconception is that muscle was "built". If you weighed 115lbs and skinny, then later on weighed 150lbs and had much bigger muscles, you built muscles. Going the opposite direction doesn't build muscle.Of course cardio builds muscle, because as the OP pointed out you have to use muscle to do cardio. I think the disconnect is that just doing cardio will at some point stop building muscle and just maintain that muscle. Once you have enough muscle to efficiently run 3 miles your legs will not keep building bigger and bigger muscles (thank God!) if that's all you do because it's not needed. But those muscles you originally built will remain as long as you continue to run 3 miles regularly. And you'll continue to burn calories, which I why I love cardio.
You don't build muscle on CALORIE DEFICITS. This is scientifically proven.
Built them up. Made them bigger/stonger/toned. Semantics. The muscles are bigger and stronger after beginning cardio than they were when sitting on the couch all day.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! NO THEY ARE NOT. Unless you've been doing some sort of lifting.
I bet if you would have measured your legs at the thigh and calf before and did it again now they'd be smaller.
Of course they are smaller because I lost fat.
Yes, of course but your're probably not building muscle.
Why do you think you're right when this is something agreed upon by almost every expert in the sports nutrition and fitness world?
Show me a runner who does not lift weights and has bigger than normal legs and then we can debate.
Why do you say "probably not building muscle" then isist there is no possibilty that I built muscle? I know my legs.0 -
You admitted your legs are smaller, that proves you didn't build muscle. The muscle was already there, the fat burned off and revealed it. It's really not that complex. If I maintain my current muscle mass, an just lower my body fat to 4 or 5% I'll look completely shredded, but I will not have built up any muscle.0
-
If you are trying to burn any amount of fat, you need to do cardio quite a bit.
Please, don't tell MY body this.
I don't do cardio...period. I've lost 37lbs of FAT in what amounts to less than 3mos.
This debate is so old. The research is out there. The results of both strength training and cardio, are hormonal, and opposite. To very much simplify, one tells your body to lighten the load in order to make your work easier...via burning off muscle, the other, to increase your strength for the same reason.
/sigh...and to say you have to do cardio to burn fat Is just misleading and completely inaccurate.0 -
I often read "You won't gain muscle by just doing cardio" but what exercise IS just cardio? Running and cycling build leg muscles, rowing builds them all over, as does swimming, I can't think of any sport where the cardio aspect is balanced with some strengthening effect. So what is "just" cardio? Air punching?
most likely cardio will actually burn muscle and make them smaller (look at marathon runners, no muscle and they run all the time) Cardio breaks muscle down, not build it up.
This is true. I've had many PT tell me that cardio makes muscles smaller. If you want the big muscles, don't do any cardio, only do weights.0 -
You admitted your legs are smaller, that proves you didn't build muscle. The muscle was already there, the fat burned off and revealed it. It's really not that complex. If I maintain my current muscle mass, an just lower my body fat to 4 or 5% I'll look completely shredded, but I will not have built up any muscle.
Interesting. So, if someone just does weights and their legs get smaller, then they've not gained any muscle either??0 -
Get a body fat measurement and find out what you lean mass is. In a week do it again and see if there's a significant loss in either fat or lean mass. I had a client who had the same issue. Found out she wasn't losing as much fat as lean mass, so I switched her program up (she was running too much). Last month she was "hard" and "lean" enough she ended up doing a Fitness show.If you're a new runner (I'm currently 138lbs and been running since May this year) how would this logic apply to me? As in, I can definitely feel a layer of fat still on my legs, arms, back and stomach. Running seems to be slowly reducing this but it's still there. Am I right in assuming that at the stage of running and body composition I'm at currently, that I will continue to burn the fat off rather than muscle when doing runs of 20 minutes and over?
Yes going uphill you get this because there's a definite shift in resistance. You can get a burn, but if you're able to continue without stopping then lactic acid build up didn't peak. That means that muscular contraction is still going on (which is an indication of muscular endurance, which the slow twitch fibers are responsible for).There was also a comment (page 3 or somewhere!) about the lactic acid build up in the muscles which means the muscle is overloaded and that the "burn" will make you stop lifting, and how you don't get this running. I get this when I run and when I cycle (been cycling for over 2 years and I still get it going up hills!!!) so does this mean that my muscles are being overloaded and if so what does this mean in terms of what my muscles are doing?
Very interesting thread BTW I've enjoyed reading it!0 -
Nope. They haven't. If you gain muscle, the muscle gets bigger, not smaller. Muscles can get stronger by being trained, which means they work more efficiently, which has nothing to do with the size. Building muscle mass and actually gaining pounds of muscle is very difficult and takes eating well over maintenance calorie levels to achieve. If you are eating at a calorie deficit to lose weight, even if you're doing nothing but weights, you aren't gaining muscle. Your current muscle might be getting stronger, but it isn't growing. Your body still burns fat during weight training, just less efficiently.0
-
People believe what they want. It's not uncommon for a parent to see their child on trial for murder and claim, "I know them, there's NO WAY they could have EVER done this!" (think Scott Peterson here), when in reality science and forensics will show actual facts.Why do you say "probably not building muscle" then isist there is no possibilty that I built muscle? I know my legs.
You stated you legs are all muscle and no fat. Here's what legs of a female will look like at 5% bodyfat. Now granted some are female bodybuilders, but the point isn't that they are big, but the detail of the legs at low body fat. Unless you legs look like these, you have more body fat on them than you think.
http://menscrunch.com/25-best-female-bodybuilders-girls-with-muscle/0 -
I cannot believe this debate is still going on 5 pages later. Or that the original premise was even proposed in the 1st place.
I have been both a serious weight lifter and a serious runner at various times in my life.
Would anybody like to guess at which point I had lots of muscles, and at which point in my life they quickly faded away.0 -
The hope here is that others who may have the same question actually get the right answer.I cannot believe this debate is still going on 5 pages later. Or that the original premise was even proposed in the 1st place.
I have been both a serious weight lifter and a serious runner at various times in my life.
Would anybody like to guess at which point I had lots of muscles, and at which point in my life they quickly faded away.0 -
Get a body fat measurement and find out what you lean mass is. In a week do it again and see if there's a significant loss in either fat or lean mass. I had a client who had the same issue. Found out she wasn't losing as much fat as lean mass, so I switched her program up (she was running too much). Last month she was "hard" and "lean" enough she ended up doing a Fitness show.If you're a new runner (I'm currently 138lbs and been running since May this year) how would this logic apply to me? As in, I can definitely feel a layer of fat still on my legs, arms, back and stomach. Running seems to be slowly reducing this but it's still there. Am I right in assuming that at the stage of running and body composition I'm at currently, that I will continue to burn the fat off rather than muscle when doing runs of 20 minutes and over?
Yes going uphill you get this because there's a definite shift in resistance. You can get a burn, but if you're able to continue without stopping then lactic acid build up didn't peak. That means that muscular contraction is still going on (which is an indication of muscular endurance, which the slow twitch fibers are responsible for).There was also a comment (page 3 or somewhere!) about the lactic acid build up in the muscles which means the muscle is overloaded and that the "burn" will make you stop lifting, and how you don't get this running. I get this when I run and when I cycle (been cycling for over 2 years and I still get it going up hills!!!) so does this mean that my muscles are being overloaded and if so what does this mean in terms of what my muscles are doing?
Very interesting thread BTW I've enjoyed reading it!
Thank you very much for your reply, very interesting - especially the top bit about running too much. Will need to give that some thought as currently I am running 3 miles plus 4 days a week and cycling every day (only 2 miles there/back to work, so not as much as it sounds). Cheers.0 -
People believe what they want. It's not uncommon for a parent to see their child on trial for murder and claim, "I know them, there's NO WAY they could have EVER done this!" (think Scott Peterson here), when in reality science and forensics will show actual facts.Why do you say "probably not building muscle" then isist there is no possibilty that I built muscle? I know my legs.
You stated you legs are all muscle and no fat. Here's what legs of a female will look like at 5% bodyfat. Now granted some are female bodybuilders, but the point isn't that they are big, but the detail of the legs at low body fat. Unless you legs look like these, you have more body fat on them than you think.
http://menscrunch.com/25-best-female-bodybuilders-girls-with-muscle/
So, not-so-hypothetical situation -- person spends 30 years sitting most of the time and walking only as needed for daily activity. Then, same person decides to start running 3 miles per day. Are you seriously suggesting that this running will not cause that person to gain muscle??0 -
I like your comment. I do primarily cardio. Treadmill to be specific. I'm just getting back into the gym after a break. Sadly I'm one of those on again off again gym people. I joined here hoping it might keep me motivated so I'd keep going long enough to see results this time. I try to do 30 minutes 3-4 times a week. Then I try to do the gyms circuit area 1-2 times a week as well for some weight bearing activities. Hoping the cardio will help get me in some over all better shape. I'm not looking to build much muscle just to loss some of the fat.0
-
People believe what they want. It's not uncommon for a parent to see their child on trial for murder and claim, "I know them, there's NO WAY they could have EVER done this!" (think Scott Peterson here), when in reality science and forensics will show actual facts.Why do you say "probably not building muscle" then isist there is no possibilty that I built muscle? I know my legs.
You stated you legs are all muscle and no fat. Here's what legs of a female will look like at 5% bodyfat. Now granted some are female bodybuilders, but the point isn't that they are big, but the detail of the legs at low body fat. Unless you legs look like these, you have more body fat on them than you think.
http://menscrunch.com/25-best-female-bodybuilders-girls-with-muscle/
So, not-so-hypothetical situation -- person spends 30 years sitting most of the time and walking only as needed for daily activity. Then, same person decides to start running 3 miles per day. Are you seriously suggesting that this running will not cause that person to gain muscle??
No. In order for muscle to grow larger you need to eat at a calorie surplus (at least 3500 calories over for a pound, but more than that because it's impossible to only grow muscle without adding fat,) and you need to OVERLOAD the muscle going well past the muscles upper load limit for a specific amount of time, to engage fast twitch muscle fibers. Unless you're constantly sprinting, you aren't overloading the muscle. When running, the muscle will become more efficient (stronger) as it's trained, but will not grow larger.0 -
If that is the case, there MIGHT be a gain, but it would be insignificant. And if continued running is the preference to lose weight and you're on calories deficit, any "gain" would be deleted since every weight loss program will reduce some lean muscle. Again the misconception is that when people can actually see the muscle under less fat, that they "gained" it somehow.So, not-so-hypothetical situation -- person spends 30 years sitting most of the time and walking only as needed for daily activity. Then, same person decides to start running 3 miles per day. Are you seriously suggesting that this running will not cause that person to gain muscle??0 -
If that is the case, there MIGHT be a gain, but it would be insignificant. And if continued running is the preference to lose weight and you're on calories deficit, any "gain" would be deleted since every weight loss program will reduce some lean muscle. Again the misconception is that when people can actually see the muscle under less fat, that they "gained" it somehow.So, not-so-hypothetical situation -- person spends 30 years sitting most of the time and walking only as needed for daily activity. Then, same person decides to start running 3 miles per day. Are you seriously suggesting that this running will not cause that person to gain muscle??
But that's all I've been saying. You will gain initially. Not that you will continue to gain with cardio. I know this is true because once due to an injury I had to not use one leg AT ALL for 2 months. I was thin. My leg was noticably smaller than the one I was using and got noticably bigger when I began walking on it again. I did no strength training, just walking and I built muscle.0 -
In that situation, you didn't build up one leg, the other leg atrophied, then went back to normal. If you lose muscle mass due to an injury, then yes, it takes less effort to overload, but you can't "build muscle" without increasing resistance.0
-
In that situation, you didn't build up one leg, the other leg atrophied, then went back to normal. If you lose muscle mass due to an injury, then yes, it takes less effort to overload, but you can't "build muscle" without increasing resistance.
I realize that. I got the resistance from walking (cardio).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions